“At the end of the day, we have to value ourselves as more than just an image.

An image is just an image. If you want more, look deeper within.

Are you a good friend? A kind companion? How do you treat others?

Those are the things that are a better definition of beauty.’

—-

Sara Ramirez

===============

I imagine all of us want to be seen by everyone as ‘something.’ In my mind this ‘something’ isn’t fame or some high falutin’ title or even being rich, instead, its to be recognized characteristically as something. This is not something shallow, but something a little deeper that defines you. Yes. I think we all want, in some degree, to be recognized for character, not some material or tangible thing.

That said. This means, in reality, driving toward that ‘something’ is incredibly fairly innocuous & incredibly difficult to define in a way everyone knows what good is and what bad is. The ‘something’ will vary from person to person meaning a shitload of us want to be seen as smart, or well rounded, or beautiful, or funny, or … well … pick your personal poison.

I could suggest that is kind of a shallow something.

Okay.

I will.

That is a shallow ‘something.’

And what makes that shallow worse is that by making that a fairly significant portion of how we choose to define ourselves we spend an inordinate amount of time & energy planning for ‘someday’ when that ‘something’ is played back to us as our defining characteristic.

Uhm.

Well.

If you are not careful … someday stealthily sneaks up on you as ‘today … and then yesterday … and then day by day it just becomes your Life.

Unfortunately Life is not just an image.

Unfortunately Life is ultimately not that shallow.

Unfortunately you have to leave the shallow end of the pool at some point and venture into the deep end in order to find … well … value.

Despite what marketing & advertising & branding folk may suggest, image is not everything and image does not equal any meaningful value.

Despite what Instagram suggests, image is not everything and image does not equal any meaningful value.

This doesn’t mean it isn’t tempting nor does it mean society doesn’t spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to convince you image matters.

But the truth is image without substance is simply a façade … a mask.

I can unequivocally state that the number of people who can maintain an entire life behind a mask is minuscule. It is extremely difficult to maintain that façade for an entire Life. It is like trying to play out an act … forever. Someone can do it for a while and fewer can figure out how to build the trappings which can hold the act together, but to hold all of that together for a Lifetime takes some luck, some clever skills, some bravado to appease the cynics & skeptics and, ultimately, some ability to keep the lack of substance out of the spotlight & questioning.

Suffice it to say … it takes a lot of work to wear a mask an entire Life.

And maybe that is my larger point.

We all want to eventually be seen as ‘something.’ And we all would prefer that something be of value to those who recognize it and of value to our self-worth.

That means.

If you are not careful you can spend a significant portion of your Life chasing some definition, some ‘something’ you are recognized by — that has little or no real value to oneself.

By the way. I am not suggesting this is easy. Society encourages shallowness. It can do so in a variety of ways but the main way is simple – measurement.

The shallowest ‘somethings’ are easy to see, easy to assess and easy to measure versus either society standards or versus others. Likes, followers, being labeled an ‘influencer’ or, heck, even earning some ‘label’ which could be construed as approval are all measurements which make the shallow aspects of Life more tangible.

The deepest ‘somethings’ – good, soul, character, integrity … shit like that — are difficult to measure and, frankly, the definition is earned over time and with consistent behavior. You cannot expect instant gratification, at least external gratification, if you pursue a ‘deeper something.’ In other words, you are less likley to gain the visible rwards in as large a quanitty versus pursiing more shallow value.

Sigh.

Well. Here is what I know:

“At the end of the day, we have to value ourselves as more than just an image.

An image is just an image. If you want more, look deeper within.

Image is just an image.

How about this.

Image is like masturbation.

A deeper something is like making love.

I tend to believe we all want more.

We all want that kind of self-value that is deeper.

We all want more than just an image.

….. impact of Warehouse of Images (before Instagram existed) …..

It is a Life truth that Image is seductive. And, in fact, this is where technology has made Life more difficult. As Alvin Toffler pointed out in Future Shock before the internet our visual comparisons were limited by the sphere of physical contact with external interspersed creating a semi-controlled universe of ‘standards.’ With the advent of the internet Toffler warned us the sphere would increase exponentially which would be additional psychological pressures upon people they had not faced before. I would argue he was prescient and much of the social pressure young people feel today is driven by a larger universe in Instagram, Facebook, etc. of unrealistic comparisons.

The good news? Shallow pursuit of personal value is, well, shallow. And most of us, given the opportunity to pursue a deeper more meaningful value will choose that path.

We find that path attractive because, well, it is a Life truth that if you want more than image, and look deeper within for that ‘something’, you will find a better definition of yourself.

“I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

—–

alexei panshin

============

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

–

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

This is about business and also about “the post-Christmas let down”.

What this all has in common is what someone once called “happiness hangovers.”I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after Christmas.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes off … every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> … and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and when the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body rebalances itself. The dopamine high goes from high … to low. Then finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained.

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something … and it concludes satisfactorily … we rise to a high. Our happiness meter is 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space , which happiness used to hang out in, with … doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminished the true happiness and high.

So this year when you sit back with the realization that Christmas is over just take a moment and think about how you (and all of us) deal with the happiness hangover.

The aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can.

Christmas?

Leave the tree up.

Leave the lights up.

Maybe still play the music.

Business?

Retell the highlight moments.

Replay portions in meetings.

Gather to relive aspects.

As mentioned upfront in this piece, we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions.

We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should.

And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body & minds with the trappings of “what was” (or, worse, try and make up for how expectations where not met).

We all do it.

And most of us do it unconsciously.

Is it really bad for us to do it?

Well. Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence … but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>

……………….. Christmas is over …….

Well.

All that said.

The day after Christmas, Christmas is done, but still not completely gone. And just as we do with big work events … we are dealing with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and psychological reasons behind we are so silly.

How can emptiness be so heavy? When I saw this ‘six word story’ I stopped. It is one of those thoughts so incredibly obvious yet so insightful and so simple … you have to think.

How can something not there, like emptiness or empty space, carry something tangible?

How can emptiness, nothing, be so much of a something?

——-

“We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing.”

Charles Bukowski

——-

Well. The truth is Emptiness is a burden. A heavy burden.

And emptiness really isn’t nothing. It is made up of, well, a lot of stuff. It is a hole filled with the remnants of everything left behind. Of all things gone but not forgotten. This could include regrets, memories, past decisions and even people no longer there.

If you think about it, all the things that have touched our lives could reside in this emptiness. Paradoxically, their absence may mean that their presence is gone yet their figurative weight, their gravitas, remains.

——

“Sometimes you can only feel something by its absence. By the empty spaces it leaves behind. “

Gayle Forman

——–

I imagine I could offer up some flippant trite suggestions on how you can put your emptiness on a diet. Thoughts on ‘how to shed the unwanted weight.’ Or maybe suggest we think about all the silly things we do and feel which create the weight in things that are, frankly, not really there.

I will not.

——-

“You can decorate absence however you want ― but you’re still going to feel what’s missing.”

Siobhan Vivia

——

I will not because I tend to believe emptiness will always be heavy. It will always be heavier than it should as well as heavier than we probably want. Suffice it to say emptiness = weight. Therefore, if you feel some emptiness you will be burdened with some weight. Conversely, no emptiness, no weight.

I will only suggest that we become better at carrying that weight — the burden. The emptiness will always remain <albeit we may fill it with some things which decorate the emptiness in things that make it a little less apparent> and we just learn to carry it better.

I apologize if that sounds ‘less than positive’ or not enough of a ‘here is how to shed emptiness’ type advice but, pragmatically, I tend to believe emptiness isn’t something that goes away. If something has earned emptiness status, in that it was important enough that you felt its absence, I hesitate to believe it will magically waft away like smoke.

Emptiness is simply more substantial than smoke. Emptiness is more substantial than nothingness.

Anyway.

How can emptiness be so heavy? Because that which makes up emptiness is something. In fact. Typically a bunch of somethings that matter.

sign marking a dead end, end of the road, metaphor of a difficult problem or tasks with an unclear path to proceed

“Begin at the beginning, and go on until you come to the end: then stop.”

—-

Alice in Wonderland

<King of Hearts to Alice>

===

Well.

We in the business world typically suck at a number of things.

1. How we view trends.

we confuse fads with trends and attitudes with behaviors.

2. How we view … well … decisions.

– we make the small big.

– we make the big ones look insurmountable … and treat them like we are planning DDay.

– we too often view things in hindsight <trends look obvious and decisions look smaller and clearer … albeit we like to label them BIG>.

I state all that because this suckedness formula tends to make all decisions pretty difficult and the truly difficult decisions almost impossible. And yet I will point out one made by Starbucks recently that kind of takes all the things we typically suck at and shows how you can weave your way through the suck minefield to reach the difficult decision that has to be made … and should be made.

Suffice it to say creating or following a trend looks an awful like reading tea leaves. You may get lucky <and call it some brilliant insightfully smart strategic thinking afterwards …note … few & far between but lauded as something everyone should aspire to> but in general if you try and CREATE a trend, or lead one, no one <or not enough> follow to make it a trend <other than one you have in your mind that others should be doing but are stupidly not doing> … if you FOLLOW a trend <not the insight within the trend> it’s like being a surfer trying to catch a wave too late. You’ll paddle a lot within the trend without the thrill of riding the crest or ride the pipeline. Now if you can actually spot a trend <not a fad … which is different> and dig into the core of its energy that’s where success resides. Most businesses misuse trends <assuming they use trends at all>. They use a trend as rationale for decisions instead of using a trend to find a relevant product <innovation or usage or connection point> insight.

But mostly businesses misuse trends from a timing perspective – wanting to create <a crap shoot>, wanting to follow <you are inevitably behind> or wanting to lead <which almost always means you are looking over your shoulder all the time>. I could write a whole article on how brands & branding people misuse trends, but suffice it to say most businesses just suck at how they view trends.

We in business always want things to be really important and really big so that we can showcase our value in the decisions we made within these important and big decisions.

This creates a variety of issues.

We make the small decisions look big. This is bad because … well … businesses are rarely driven by any truly big decision but instead a massive quantity of smaller decisions.

Most leaders know & understand that.

Most middle management kind of knows that but hates admitting it.

We make the truly big decisions look like frickin’ Mount Everest. This is bad because … well … they take on a rich & royal hue of insurmountability. Middle management does this to pass responsibility on to the shoulders of those who get ‘paid to climb Mt. Everest’ and bad leaders do this to cover their ass <I mean, c’mon, how many people really can climb Mt. Everest?>.

All in all this makes decision making tough. Especially the bigger ones that need, and should, be made

In addition there this this weird thing we do with decisions … past sight. Because all decisions take on more importance than their actual value we seek things to create some comfort. In other words, we seek out things done in the past. We use past sight to reflect upon ‘big important decisions.’

Uh oh. Let’s be clear … in present sight many of these decisions were just decisions … not insurmountable not monumental nor were they even ‘too big’ and they may not have even been a ‘big important decision’ <with the larger repercussions that past sight is now showing>.

They were decisions. In past sight we have sifted thru the chaff and uncovered the wheat. Metaphors aside I would suggest that time is better spent sifting thru the chaff today than using past sight.

But this is about where business people typically suck so suffice it to say while we mismanage most decisions we certainly misidentify the bigger more difficult decisions to a point where they can often be insurmountable <and therefore no one makes the difficult decision>.

Okay. The Starbucks difficult decision. Well. Starbucks is a lightning rod for positivity and negativity.

It embodies everything that is good and bad about capitalism, marketing, positioning, good business and poor decision making.

For every great thing you can point out about Starbucks someone will immediately <and typically very passionately> point out something they hate about Starbucks. Suffice it to say they built a business empire through one very specific thing – offering a great cup of coffee in a cool environment <which encouraged hanging out>.

Anything anyone can try and convince you of some psychological and marketing mumbo jumbo behind their success is just fluff.

It is simple. They decided to offer something pretty basic & practical and built an empire around it. You can bitch about overextending, too many locations, and ‘selling out’ or any number of ‘they are too mainstream’ type bitches you want to, but they have never strayed too far from what I pointed out.

That said. They have made mistakes. And they have made some business mistakes <as all good businesses who try and grow and do different things will do>.

Frankly, I give them credit for stupid mistakes. A lot of credit. None killed them and at least they tried.

But where I give them the most credit? They make the difficult decision. They quit on a bad idea.

—

In june they announced “Starbucks to close all 23 La Boulange locations” saying the stores “weren’t sustainable for the company’s long-term growth.”

The cafes, known for their French-inspired decor and menus, and the pink envelopes that now cup pastries sold at Starbucks stores, are favorite breakfast and lunch spots in the San Francisco Bay Area. Starbucks bought Bay Bread and the La Boulange brand in 2012 for $100 million.

The deal was seen as a strategic move by Starbucks to gain a bigger presence in the food business, particularly as traditional fast-food chains like McDonald’s improved their coffee offerings.

“After more than 40 years, we will be able to say that we are bakers, too,” Howard Schultz, CEO at Starbucks, said at the time.

—

Oh. They are also closing the Evolution Fresh retail location in San Francisco.

—

Analysts said the closures likely reflect a decision by Starbucks to focus on its extensive chain of Starbucks stores, rather than run two separate operating businesses.

“While they’ve had some success with La Boulange-branded products, running the stores was a distraction,” said David Henkes, vice president at Technomic, a restaurant research and consulting company.

—

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … they are turning their back on a $100+ million investment.

I now refer to my opening quote from Alice in Wonderland <which most likely confused a shitload of people> … begin at the beginning, and go on until you come to the end: then stop.

This is a difficult decision because most businesses and business people don’t recognize ‘the end’ and know when to stop. I tend to believe it is because they have a leader who may not be comfortable making the difficult decisions … but is willing to make them.

I have sat in a meeting with Howard Schultz <he would never remember me> and he portrayed all the positive characteristics of what I would call a “benevolent dictator.” Listens well. Articulates well. Delegates well. Permits others to pursue different ideas and paths. And when he makes a decision or a statement … well … that is the period at the end of the discussion <’that is what we will do’ decisiveness>.

To be clear on that type of leadership. While many people WANT <or desire> this status not many people can actually DO this. Do I think he is comfortable making the difficult decisions? Of course not. No good leader doesn’t feel some discomfort. What the hell. It is a big hairy audacious difficult decision. These are the decisions that SHOULD make someone feel a little uncomfortable.

Now. That doesn’t mean he isn’t willing to make the difficult decision … and that is often what separates leaders.

Good leaders feel the discomfort and feel their way past it to make the decision.

Scary leaders don’t feel any discomfort and make a decision.

Non leaders feel the discomfort and cannot feel their way past it to make a decision.

The Starbucks investment was based on a variety of pieces of information … user trends, people trends, business analytics, all that crap. And along the way they made a number of small, big, inconsequential and consequential decisions … all of which led them from the beginning to the end.
And at the end there was someone who made the most difficult decision … and that really wasn’t ‘to stop’ … the truly monumental decision was to decide they were at the end. It is far far easier to say ‘one more try, one more year, one more season, one more … one more … one more …”

The difficult decision?

To stand up and say ‘we have come to the end.’

Not many businesses and business people can make that difficult decision. Heck. Not many people would use trends correctly to help make good hard decisions. And maybe that’s my point. Most businesses suck at looking at trends at that is related to suckedness in making decisions. Note that the next time you run into a business who has no frickin’ clue how to use a trend.

“Your mind is not a cage. It’s a garden. And it requires cultivating.”

=

A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray

—

“What did thinking ever do for me; to what great place did thinking ever bring me?

I think and think and think.

I’ve thought myself out of happiness one million times, but never once into it.”

=

extremely loud and incredibly close

—

This is a long rambling piece on thinking.

Ok. While often we talk about Time as the new currency in people’s lives, I think we should more often discussing Thinking as the new form of Life currency. Yup. Thinking as a value proposition.

In today’s complex business world it seems like we are increasingly dependent upon thinking work, creativity, and the ability to grasp and apply complex abstract multi-dimensional intellectual challenges. To be clear, thinking work is different from the traditional jobs & work of even the last generation. I am not suggesting past work generations didn’t think, but in an output/creation economy a worker could measure their success in physical quantities – how much stuff was created, sold, shipped or built.

Now. In an idea/thinking economy the measures of success are increasingly intangible <unless you deem profits & stock price as tangible>. In this type of less tangible value proposition all of a sudden ideas or ‘feelings’ create value.

Examples:

==

The iPod was better than other MP3 players not because it had more, but because it had fewer buttons and features – the right buttons and features for music on the go.

—

A restaurant chain displaces a competitor because it feels more (or less) like home.

—

A shoe company thrives because it gives away half the pairs that you buy.Even vacuum cleaners, cars, and backyard grills are made, marketed and sold in ways that were inconceivable in the past.

==

Producing these products and services, consequently, is less a function of the volume of resources that are put in and more a function of “thinking investment” & “creating perceptions <with value>.” In the past more raw materials, better equipment, or people punching a time clock translated directly to more “output.”

Today, value creation is often more about efficiency.

Or minimizing to maximize.

Minimize what to put in and then maximize how creatively you craft the features.

This means that production in today’s business world is about economical/efficient input … and selling is about effectiveness <value creation thru thoughtful ideation>.

That means thinking is the foundation of today’s economy value creation.

Yikes. Yikes because thinking ain’t easy. In fact there is an inherent frailty in the intangible of this thinking foundation.

Frailty? Yup. A couple of frail aspects to this thinking world I am outlining.

There is a mental frailty when it comes to coming up an ‘idea’ <good ideas are tough to come up with and typically very personal> … and there is a positioning in the mind frailty because the value resides more in ‘thought’ than in anything real <kind of nebulous when in thought form> … and then there is a simple ‘space’ frailty in the thinking mind. Good ideas are often quick to arise and quick to die. Ideas , and consequently thinking, is scary.

While I am not particularly fond of the articulation of this creative execution the message is truer than true.

Ideas are scary. This leads me to the last frailty: a frailty in the mind’s capabilities. This frailty is reflected in sheer mind storage space available <or the lack thereof>.

It’s not that there is any decline in mental capabilities but rather the mind becomes overwhelmed with too much thinking. By the way, this is not information overload, that is a different issue, this is simply thinking too much. Too much thinking when the mind would be at its best by … well … not thinking.

Too much thinking can kill inspiration <as all the reasons why it can’t be done arise>.

Too much thinking can kill a thought <as it gets overwhelmed by new thoughts>.

Too much thinking can kill an idea <shifting from good to mediocrity>.

===

“It is a fundamental paradox of human psychology that thinking can be bad for us.”

Ian Leslie

===

By following our own thoughts too closely we can lose our bearings as our inner chatter drowns out common sense and stifles our ‘good thinking’. Most of us are actually really pretty good at naturally stripping away unimportant to what is important when we think. Unfortunately we also suck at stopping after stripping.

What I do know for sure is that in a study of shopping behavior the less information people were given about a brand the better choice they made. Specifically <and this will matter to those marketers who like to give gobs of minutiae to people believing it will help them make a better choice> … when offered full ingredient details the consumer got confused by their options <unable to discern differences and importance> and actually ended up choosing a product they did not like <i.e., people were forcing themselves to select on a criteria that was not really ‘heart preference’ but rather “head <logical> preference.” And they were not happy in the end when they used.

Sometimes the mind gets overwhelmed if it has to think about too much.

This leads me to believing that the art of thinking needs to be nurtured and trained as well as possible to be successful in today’s world. Everyone has a natural thinker within us.

I believe everyone has some innate ability to treat pieces of information as jigsaw puzzle pieces waiting to be put together and create something. But within that innate ability there are some people who seem to slow down rapidly moving pieces mentally so they can see everything and, conversely, there are other people who only see blurs or pieces of the pieces. But everyone, yes everyone, has some ability to sift through the jumbled pot of information and, like a Williams Sonoma colander, trap the essentials and quickly let the inessential run off.

Yes. Thinking has always been about bringing stuff in and letting stuff out.

—

“… we are cups, constantly and quietly

being filled. the trick is knowing how

to tip ourselves over and let the

beautiful stuff out.”

Ray Bradbury

===

Even all that said … today’s world does demand a different type of thinker.

—-

The Thinker

Historically we contemplated in retreat, silence, solitude, and within our own mind. We solved problems in isolation, deep thought, and through introverted reflection.

==

The Contemporary Thinker

In an age of twittering, blogging, social networking, and sophisticated work-place networks, global science networks, and mass-participation and collaboration, information is exchanged in a nonstop connected world.

—–

Today’s thinking and problem solving has to live in a world where we are inter-connected, globally accessible and the exchange of information is fluid. This actually means we have the ability to bring problems closer to solutions and ideas faster to challenge the status quo.

So. Part of the challenge for the next generation of thinkers is how to let stuff out before they simply get overwhelmed with the amount that they bring in. This also means building a stronger ability to immerse in knowledge and then step out of immersion to think.

Uh oh. The stepping in and out is … well … difficult. Even for those who are good at it. In today’s digital/networked society where the world, cultures and people share their experiences via a variety of web based social platforms … information travels, it is fluid, and experiences are shared … meaning that ideas swirl around for thinkers to grab out of the ether <as long as they are paying attention>.

—-

“If you don’t think, then you shouldn’t talk.”

March Hare, Alice in Wonderland

========

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

Robert Frost

———–

Thinking is complex <so trying to tell someone ‘how to think’ seems kind of silly>. But thinking encompasses being creative, thoughtful, and solutions oriented <for thinking without a conclusion isn’t really thinking>. And this thinking is being done in a world where problems are extremely complex, target expectations, markets and industry variables are continuously moving, and our brains often seem like small computers within enormous networks that are constantly reconfiguring.

Well. Let me tell you one last aspect which makes thinking even more difficult <and scary>. Let’s just say most of us every day schmucks, & businesses, are notorious for being future blind.

Why? Well.I am sure there are a variety of reasons, but I would suggest two main reasons:

it is difficult to envision something that doesn’t really exist today, and

we think about insights, the things that inspire true thinking, as the outcome … not the enabler for outcome.

Many years of innovation work have shown me that insights are not enough. In fact, they are fairly worthless on their own. Insights have little intrinsic value without being transformed into frameworks and narratives that can drive strategic action.

–

The best part is when you realize the value is not in the insight itself but what can be done with it. A good insight can inspire unique frameworks, narratives, and actions appropriate for very different challenges and opportunities.

==

I included that insight thought because I sometimes believe that thinking is hard because we love outcomes so much. Often insight is simply the enabler of an eventual outcome <therefore thinking only indirectly has an outcome>. And insights are not all created equal therefore not all outcomes are created equal.

<yikes … there is a nasty Life formula>

Look. All I really know is that today’s world runs on thinking <not making shit> and that thinking is not a particularly valued ‘product’ in today’s world.

We synthesize new ideas constantly.

We tend to learn rapidly.

Yeah. Don’t shake your head and disagree. Most people learn a lot of new stuff really fast.

Uh oh. While we learn, and think, and apply what we just learned … you make mistakes.

Yikes. Mistakes are tough to handle. We know we need to make them but get crucified in real life <and in business> and by society in making them.

This association makes thinking a disease in some people’s minds.

Think too much and bad shit happens.

Think too much and you get terminally ill.

—-

“Thinking has become a disease.”

Eckhart Tolle

—-

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.

The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.

The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”

A. A. Milne

—————

Well. Thinking can be a disease to some … and improve health in others. Suffice it to say the mind is an amazing instrument when used correctly and a very destructive weapon when used incorrectly. While the mind thrives when dealing with problems it also loves true thinking — thinking driven by you <not a problem>.

This type of thinking is difficult and, frankly, most people don’t like doing it.

“Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

==================

Whew.

Simplicity.

Discussing what is simple, and what is simplicity, maybe one of the most complex and complicated topics you will ever discuss.

It is, well, never simple.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually achieved in the stimulus … or in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now. That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response. In fact it may more often than not. Uhm. “May”. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than.’ In other words, they simply communicate nothing. So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Chopin got it right. He wrote music which could often be complex and intertwined with nuance … but simplicity was achieved in the final achievement. And that is about writing, or creating, from the edge.

Let me explain.

Writing things from the edges has nothing to do with danger or risk taking or even ‘living on the edge’ type perceptions everyone seems to have. The edge is simply less cluttered. It is what simplicity is about.

People seem to get very very confused when they talk about simplicity and complexity, but if you want to make sense of a lot of shit — just move your ass closer to an edge.

It is not scary.

It is simply clearer there.

Well. I guess clarity can be scary … but you get my point.

All I know is that when I write … or think … I do my best when I place my chair and laptop on the edge and think.

Ok. Let me talk some business.

Simplicity as edging closer to the edges.

In business … no matter how we choose to communicate a brand <public relations, broadcast, print, web, whatever> the only place where the brand truly exists is in the heads of people.

I say that because when you start discussing this whole wacky branding thing ‘edge’ rarely enters the conversation. Sure. Simplicity does, but not edge. This means a boatload of companies <and a shitload of start-up businesses> think they can just use a visually driven smart ass attention-grabbing approach to their advertising and they will conquer the world. They think this kind of simplicity will grab some prime real estate in our already overcrowded brains.

To be clear. This is a crappy idea, but one that even traditional companies find tempting. Smart-ass ads often get talked about and noticed, but, just as often, they fail to make a brain connection. In other words … they get attention but they don’t get results.

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

However, you can improve your chances of gaining brain space and making a connection—a brain and brand connection that will truly inspire recall and the desired outcomes.

How? Well.

Someone had an idea called ‘brand humanity.’

Brand humanity, in its simplest terms, is a brand’s emotional essence. It must be inherent in the product or service offered. It must be relevant to people’s dreams, hopes, desires, aspirations. It must relate in human terms to human beings. Advertising must capture and communicate this emotional essence. If it doesn’t, somebody must go back to the drawing board. Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.

Whether you like the ‘brand humanity’ nomenclature or not it is a good thought but not a simple thing to do.

And, no, I am not suggesting creating a complex complicated stimulus is needed to achieve this objective, but I am simply suggesting that a soundbite or one visual may not achieve what you want. Want?:

What makes this brand important to someone?

What need does it meet <or problem it solves>?

What desire <Maslow stuff> does it fulfill?

Answer the questions, and you’ll find the connection points of the brand. But don’t expect the journey to be easy. Finding the points takes a disciplined, strategic development process that moves from the complex to the simple, from the rational to the emotional. It is finding out what is important to a person and creating that connection. I imagine it is as simple as finding what truth will make it matter to a person. But in writing that … we all know that truth is never really simple nor easy.

What I do ask people to think about when discussing simplicity is to remember that everyone loves a good story. And the best business <brand> stories are all about reaching inside people at a deeper and more enduring emotional level to link to the functional offering you provide. Some people call his ‘personalization’ but it is really just attaching the functional problem being solved with personal ‘issues’ … Maslow stuff … self esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self doubt and economic well being. I would also note the best stories are simple incorporating elements of hero, conflict, and goal <note: whatever you say has to be simple enough that it can be told by any consumer or front line sales people>.

This means the company & brand is no longer just about differentiated services, consistent delivery, optimized touch-points, and re engineered activities. Brands now need this ‘humanity’ <not to be confused with social responsibility> based in experiences, distinct identifiable moments and character.

I think we could take some lessons from technology.

Technology has ALWAYS <not just in today’s world> been an interesting thought leader with regard to simplicity. Their core expertise has always been in the business of masking the complex with simplicity.

Things like flipping a switch to turn on a light bulb, picking up the phone and hearing a dial tone, or pressing a button and turning on a television set are only easy on the surface.

Someone had to spend years developing the underlying technologies that enable much of our modern lives, and then they had to make sure that the tools were accessible to people and that while we didn’t understand why it worked as it did, we trusted it to work.

This principle carries to the mobile age with enabling touch-screens where sliding a finger to unlock a phone is simple … the technology that makes it possible is not.

All that said.

Simplicity and stories: hero, conflict, goal.

– Pick the conflict that matters

– Differentiate resolution of conflict meaningfully

– Imbue the character of the hero in every action taken to resolve the conflict

Good stories are fairly simple. The story needs to remain simple in its focus, i.e., the simpler it is the better. The simplicity has to be relevant … in being desirable to consumers, distinctive <not necessarily unique> from competition, deliverable by the organization and durable over time.

If you stay true to simplicity <not simple>, you make it simpler for people to connect with it. And if you make it easy, they’ll gladly give you some prime brain real estate which every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

Therein lies the issue.

Easy and simple is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the end.

Despite the fact you can have experts lining up to tell you all about what simplicity is … and how to use simplicity to create a brand and make an impression … we’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make a brand possible.

All I know for sure is that there is no formula for simplicity.

Chopin nailed the issue.

His music was complex and sometimes complicated.

And, yet, people sit and listen for minutes on end … and say afterwards: “that was simply beautiful.”

I imagine I am simply saying simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

Attitude: safe and risk

Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances. All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice? We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity. What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

Every year around “Black Friday” I get asked about the value of marketing in a capitalistic society. Here is my view on whether Marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical). Vilhjamur (from the quote) was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising, but he did say the quote I used.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>

2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>

3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

It would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale, but I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broad interpretation and lots of caveats & excuses. Before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy before they saw the marketing”).

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look. I am all for capitalism and selling stuff, but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all, but some <a lot>. What makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue/rot/compromise that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

===============

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment. That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles. But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Kristen Hersh

==================

Ok. There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought, much bigger than just about the fashion industry, & relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue. It suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style. Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So. Substance creates beauty all on its own and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

Oh, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok. Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance and the truths that reside within.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths, we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people. In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall”

(Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season. The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again, is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”? This is a really really gray area. Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales, but inevitably they are just trying to create more interest. They do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff. Marketing does all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days. That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run. And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

In other words, let me try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil. Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil. Let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

– Superbowl

– New Year’s Resolutions (January)

– Lawn and Garden (April)

– Back to School/College(July through August)

– Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

– Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

– Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

– Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

– Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong, but, you get the point)

Why do they do this? Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons” and even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look. I don’t believe marketing is evil, but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior to encourage people to consume things.

But. Here is a truth. Impulse or not, marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do. I would also point out in today’s world with return guarantees, free return shipping, etc., it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business. You can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible. By “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.” In addition, they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire. I think most Marketing people just try to do the best job they can to sell things they represent.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important. Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say, but also by how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are mostly not evil, just absurdly annoying – which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness). I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them. According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer and which act as a repellent. If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions. If marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect. Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.”

PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.” For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon <note: ‘personalization’ is being discussed in some fairly absurd creepy ways these days>.

Okay. Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself. Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

– Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

– Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

– Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger. Here is where marketing runs into its most trouble: marketing people. Ok. Maybe it’s not the people , it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble. All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.” Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out. Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … important.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY important. This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence” (which I have written about before). It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh. Silence. Omission. This is where many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers. You always have time to tell the important truth. And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end, I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd. In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)? Well. Possibly. Evil is a strong word. It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent. And that may seem evil, but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself, I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think and ultimately can affect what they do. With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Black Friday seems to bring out the worst in marketing. Maybe it is because on that one day, above all, Marketing people forget their greater responsibility in their pursuit of a business responsibility – sell shit. And maybe that is where I should end. Its not about evil or good, or ethical versus unethical, its about not being a shit while selling shit. Period.

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty.“Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.

Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First.Move.There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second.Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

===================

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

“The talk you hear about adapting to change is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

The only way you can manage change is to create it.”

—–

Peter Drucker

================

“Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. You gave me a forever within the numbered days, and I’m grateful.”

———–John Green

==================

Ok. This is about Possibilities and infiniteness. A long time ago I wrote ‘multiple sized infinities’ where I attempt to debunk the “your possibilities are infinite” snake oil life coaching advice. But here I focus on the finiteness of infinite in business.

I will do so in 2 ways:

decision making mode. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encourage people who need to make A decision that the possibilities are limitless.

maximizing individual’s productivity. I’m not sure how helpful it is to encouraging a person who has a job to do, and desires to do it as well as they can, that their possibilities are infinite.

Decision making.

Oddly I will begin speaking about possibilities by talking about shaking the etch a sketch. I do that because any discussion about possibilities begins, and ends, with: “whatever got you to where you are today is not enough to keep you there.” This is where the etch a sketch comes in because that quote is right AND wrong.

Rightin that you have to ditch maybe 80% of the thinking & ideas because they were building ideas and now you have to leverage velocity off of what you have. You need to shake the etch a sketch & redraw systems, process & ideas.

Wrong in that most likely your business is constructed around 4 cornerstones of principles. Or maybe it has some strong cultural boundaries.Both of those represent the good stuff that makes your business WHO it is not what it does. That’s the etch a sketch itself. The construct which holds what gets shaken. Without it the sand flies all over the place and you have … well … shit & you need to start all over (that’s bad).

This makes possibilities finite simply by the valuable boundaries of what makes a business a business. And before someone tosses out “outside the box” bullshit, these boundaries can be pushed out but stepping across means breaking principles which make your company. in other words. If this business finiteness doesn’t meet your needs don’t step out of the box, go to another company.

Individual productivity.

Let me talk comfort zones here. far too often infinite possibilities encourages people to look for shit outside their comfort zone or outside some box. As I pointed out in my comfort zone piece, that’s wrong. Individual productivity, individual meaning & individual purpose is generated by pushing OUT the boundaries of what you are currently capable of. This distinction is important because meaning shouldn’t be a onetime thing it should simply be an extension of who you are and what you do. Keep it within your zone just push the boundaries out.

Anyway. Infinite gives Possibilities a bad rap. What do I mean? Far <far> too often we talk about possibilities as “the possibilities are infinite.” We make them sound like they all reside somewhere ‘outside the box.’ From an organizational leadership standpoint this sounds quite inefficient. But the truth about possibilities are infinite is that it is bullshit. In fact. In all this bullshit we are screwing what is actually a good concept, or the possibilities truth. The future is NOT filled by infinite possibilities. Now. We may have more possibilities than we think we do, but they are certainly not infinite.

In fact the possibilities in any given time and situation are quite finite in a variety of ways:

Time inevitably squeezes your possibilities quite often into an almost suffocating finite space.

Context, or the situation itself, squeezes your possibilities quite often into a less than infinite, or maybe better said “a variety of different sized infinities,” choice space.

We do possibilities a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite.’ Shit. We do ourselves a huge disservice by suggesting ‘infinite possibilities.’ At any given time you, and the organization, are absolutely surrounded by possibilities. But possibilities do not always lie directly ahead of you or in the direction you face. Possibilities swirl around you in a multi-dimensional fashion.

Therefore, possibilities can reside in any direction.

Therefore, in order to see all possibilities you may not be able to rely solely on peripheral vision, but to turn around and view in a 360degree fashion <and, yes, if you turn around I would note you are then looking forward just in a different direction>.

Therefore, progress can reside in any direction.

But this is not infinite. It just may feel like it is infinite simply because of the complexity associated with context and what your mind can realistically grasp. We would do better if we admitted infinities, in terms of possibility, reside in all directions – not just forward. We would be much better served if we admitted that not all infinities are same sized. I also believe we would be much better served to admit that possibilities are finite to any given individual. Possibilities which be much better served if we suggested the depth & breadth available within the finite space available to us.

The power of purposeful possibilities. Purposeful possibilities means you aren’t chasing possibilities, but rather seeking meaning. Meaning at work is relatively simple. Every job shouldn’t be a valuable job, it should be a valued job. Valued by the one doing it & by others around. If you find you are valued for what you do, you will inherently begin seeking to be better because we know we are contributing. That’s meaning.

Finding the “better” within what is, i.e., a better inside for a better outside.

The better inside is obvious. This is purposeful adaptation and a constant fine tuning of how things are done and products & services offered. But we cannot, and should not, forget that all of the ‘better inside’ feeds a ‘better desire’ outside.

Pragmatically, people desire something better than a good numbers report. Sure. That is the day-to-day ‘meet the needs state’ type stuff going on in their heads, but at some point they lean back in their chairs, either in the office or in the comfort of their home, and they desire … maybe even need … to see something better to validate themselves as human beings beyond simply ‘doing their job well.’ They want to feel they have done something better, offered something better or contributed something better. In my words, they’d like to be in touch with their “muchness.” I say that because it is clearly different than infinite, or the pursuit of, possibilities. It is simply expansion of who & what you are to its greatest size & ability.

In the end. Infinite possibilities are not infinite, they are finite. And I truly believe we would all be better off as we pursue creating a better business world, one in which purpose is embraced and people can find some meaning & value in what they do if we didn’t overwhelm people with infinite and tell everyone “finite is big enough for all the good things we want to happen to happen.”